John Dickerson should read more comic strips. The authors of Doonesbury, Cathy, and Dilbert can all fit two or three jokes into two or three panels. Why can't John Dickerson work on more than one level in a thousand words of political analysis? Sure, the Clintons want to criticize Bush on the Libby commutation and sure they opened themselves up to a response from Tony Snow. But the Clintons also want to remind people that they like Bill Clinton and it doesn't particularly matter what Bill Clinton says as long as the Clinton campaign gets him out there a little. Why would the Hillary campaign care about Bush's counter-arguments? In fact, Bush isn't that much more popular in this country than Osama bin Laden. But Bill Clinton left office with an approval rating over 60% despite the Lewinsky scandal and the Marc Rich scandal. Getting Bill some coverage in the media was going to do the Hillary campaign some good however Bush responded.

her look bad to some of us who don't only think of party and want what is best for the country. Of course it wouldn't hurt her too much, since we don't support her anyway. If you are worried about having a candidate that can attract campaign funds, Obama is a better choice. He beat her at fundraising. If you want one who can think or at least has a spouse who can, Edwards might be the choice. Perhaps Biden. Hillary just doesn't cut it.

So, you're going to vote for Fred Thompson?

>>But the Clintons also want to remind people that they like Bill Clinton

Indeed, there is an upside to the confrontation, as I point out in the piece: “President Clinton spoke for many in the party who are furious about the Libby decision. As Hillary Clinton's team is quick to point out, she and her husband know how to fight. This is proof of it.”

>>and it doesn't particularly matter what Bill Clinton says as long as the Clinton campaign gets him out there a little.

This isn't the way the campaign sees it. They're paying very careful attention to what Bill Clinton says and how he says it. This piece is one of several that not just how carefully they're trying to calibrate Bill Clinton.

>>Why would the Hillary campaign care about Bush's counter-arguments?

Because they'd rather we discuss the prosperity and glowing greatness of the Clinton years not the Rich pardon.

The piece asks whether Democratic voters are ready for a Clinton administration that may constantly be adjudicating the past as we now find ourselves doing with the Libby matter. It also asks whether it was smart to pick this fight on a week that was supposed to be devoted to the positive accomplishments of the Clinton years and not a discussion of one of the darker moments.

>>But Bill Clinton left office with an approval rating over 60% despite the Lewinsky scandal and the Marc Rich scandal.

Yes, the president left with a 65% approval rating which was associated with the many positive aspects of his administration which the Clinton's hoped to highlight this week.

What they didn't want to highlight were those set of exit poll numbers in 1/20/01 that relate to behavior like the Rich pardon:

Sixty-seven percent of Americans said he wasn't honest and trustworthy. Seventy-seven percent said he lacked high moral and ethical standards. And just 44 percent viewed him favorably "as a person."

Now I feel guilty. I've been insulting Slate writers since 2000 without getting an author reply.

Thanks for taking the trouble.

But I think my basic point that you over-weighed the he-said/ she-said aspect of the Bill/Bush debate is valid. The Clinton campaign didn't have to worry about Bush's reply because of Bill Clinton's much greater popularity. Moreover, I would bet the Clinton camp took this into account. Many Democrats believe Gore made a huge mistake by not relying more on Bill Clinton in 2000. I imagine the Hillary camp believes the same thing and is determined not to underutilize him in 2008.

I think your argument about disadvantages for the Hillary campaign would have been more valid if you had focused on the media. There's been a lot of comment lately on the extent to which the media (i.e, people like you) disliked the Clintons and Al Gore. (Examples here, here, and here). In this sense, bringing out Bill Clinton to condemn the Libby commutation might have been unwise for the Hillary camp because it would have revived the general hostility to the Clintons among the Beltway media and biased future reporting about the Hillary Clinton campaign. Given the Beltway media's general coolness toward Hillary's presidential campaign (here and here), the revival of media anti-Clinton bias in the media would be a significant negative.

Needless to say, the tremendous advantage that you would have had with this angle is that you could report it as an insider, used a couple of personal anecdotes about media snickering concerning Hillary, etc. That would have made for a really compelling piece.

Yes, there are many stories worth writing, but to the point at hand:

>> Many Democrats believe Gore made a huge mistake by not relying more on Bill Clinton in 2000. I imagine the Hillary camp believes the same thing and is determined not to underutilize him in 2008.

This piece was not about whether the Clinton's should use Bill Clinton. As I wrote in this piece and have written elsewhere, it's clearly a plus for her to have him on the campaign trail. The point was that this particular instance, on this particular topic, we see the tension in using Bill Clinton to aide the campaign. Given that tension, was it wise to engage?

>> The Clinton campaign didn't have to worry about Bush's reply because of Bill Clinton's much greater popularity.

I was more interested in how Democrats feel about this. Would they prefer to have a debate about the Libby commutation or a debate about whether Libby was worse than Rich? Is this an a sign of the muddling that could happen to debates in a future Clinton presidency.

How must that feel? Bill Clinton is one of Hillary's top assets, if not THE most important, beyond her own obvious intelligence and ... let me coin a phrase, 'she-gets-it-ness." They drew highly positive crowds in Iowa together and MEGA-press coverage, all of it positive. You need to let go of the OLD, outdated negative assumptions about WJC and move on. It's time, it's way past time, actually. Obama "beat her at fundraising" IN ONE QUARTER so far. Obama will fade, just like Howard Dean did as we move closer to the party conventions next Summer. Mark my words. Obama is a charming, charismatic (to some, certainly not to me...) playuh who says some of the right things, but speaks in vague generalities, really has NO POLICY positions articulated yet and will be a good Presidential candidate in 2012 or 2016, SHOULD his current 'rising star' actually last that long. Joe Biden? Please, don't insult your readers -- he's a great guy but he doesn't have even half a snowball's chance in Hell.

WJC was put through back during the bogus "impeachment" process is outstanding, is it not? Is it also a historical record? (Do you know?)

Compare it to bushJR's pathetic current 28%
job approval rating & the Clinton years SHINE in comparison. The campaign is handling using WJC very shrewdly, imho & if they can keep that up, I think we'll see Hillary really come on strong as we move farther along toward 2008.

On another note, it is fun to watch you on PBS w. Gwen Ifill & crew from time to time, or on other 'pundit' shows -- it really makes the Slate come alive in our real lives, beyond its cyber-presence. Your mother, whom I remember watching when I was a kid, on national TV when she was THE only major female broadcast news player "in town", would be proud. I recently saw somewhere (Vanity Fair?) an article about you growing up at Merriweather (Merriwood?) in Northern Virginia and that really brought back a lot of memories of a very different time in our country. Back to the post, do you really think the Marc Rich pardon was that important to people (other than the fact that Rush & O'Reilly et al NOW bring it out to flog WJC with, at their convenience) or that people will really make the comparison? Marc Rich, although he never served time (did he?) was exiled from this country & had to live far from his family & friends and could NOT set foot in the USA until the pardon. What "punishment" if any has Scooter Libby had to "endure?" NONE. Thanks for your reply to Ric and for your excellent columns & articles here on the Slate.

utilizing Bill Clinton in the 2000 Pres. campaign. I understand fully Gore's hesitation & probably fear of doing so, but wish that ALGORE had taken the risk. WJC is immensely likable and liked and popular for a reason. The few naysayers who hated him (and I often wondered back during the tacky Monica months if some of that, that coming from male naysayers, wasn't simply personal sexual jealousy?) still do & always will. We/the Dems can't cave in to worrying about them or their predictable responses. And shouldn't.

Nice work here (as usual) Ric and thanks for putting up a link to this exchange on the BOTF. I prob. would have not seen it w/out your heads-up. John Dickerson is an awfully good sport for these replies.

Let's start over with Democratic voters then. An ARG poll came out yesterday claiming that 69% of Democrats favor impeachment proceedings for George Bush and 76% for Dick Cheney. To me, this as evidence that "Democrats" in the sense of Democratic voters have tuned out the Bush administration's efforts to communicate. Instead of seeing a "debate," Democrats view the Libby commutation almost entirely as another reason to disown the Bush administration. They're thinking more about impeachment (which I don't support by the way) than the back and forth. My 74 year-old, a-political Aunt Donna in rural Athens, PA says she bashes George Bush every day. You get around among Democratic voters. You must see the same thing.

Going back to your Hillary/ Sopranos piece (which I think is the best article you've done for Slate), you identify many of the problems that Hillary has with those who oppose her--a perception of opportunism, her vote to authorize military action in Iraq, a lack of likability, absence of warm fuzzy feelings, hostility to feminism, feelings of feminist betrayal, etc. You didn't have anything on the Marc Rich pardon or implications of sleaze there at all.

From the perspective of Democratic voters, the "debate" between the Clintons and Bush surrogates is much more of a media trope than anything else. Obviously, the media generally poses things in terms of debates as a way to avoid (generally unsuccessfully) the accusation of taking sides. In this case, however, the main "Democratic" constituency who would be affected by the "debate" would be the media itself. The media was much more offended by the Lewinsky scandal, the perjury, and the Rich pardon than Democratic voters. Perhaps the Democratic consultants and activists that media people talk to a lot are looking at things differently. You would know better. On the evidence I see, however, the only Democratic audience for the Scooter vs Marc Rich debate is the media.

By the way, would it be okay with you if I copied our discussion into my blog? My two or three hundred blog readers in Kentucky would have fun with this.

possibly base a claim of HRC having a history of "hostility to feminism" as above, now below:

Going back to your Hillary/ Sopranos piece (which I think is the best article you've done for Slate), you identify many of the problems that Hillary has with those who oppose her--a perception of opportunism, her vote to authorize military action in Iraq, a lack of likability, absence of warm fuzzy feelings, hostility to feminism, feelings of feminist betrayal, etc. You didn't have anything on the Marc Rich pardon or implications of sleaze there at all.

She is THE Feminist's feminist, imho! What can you possible mean here? Thanks, A-p.

Jumped all over this is because it would deflect news away from Iraq; the defection of 3 more Republicans from the "surge" policy and the most deadly bomb attack of the Iraq war.

In politics you go on the attack whenever possible. This provided an opening.

What I don't understand in this discussion is if Clinton's pardons are fair game (and they are) why no discussion of Bush-41's pardons of the likes of Cap Weinberger (a better comparison to Libby than Rich) or Armand Hammer (a truer comparion to Rich). Any indignation here?

It's not Hillary being hostile to feminism, it's those who hate feminism being hostile to Hillary and some feminists thinking Hillary betrayed them. There are some